The Palatka daily news. (Palatka, Fla.) 1884-1888, 1887-04-13
THE IRISH BILL.
House Of Commons Debate


| LONDON. April l2.-The House of
Commons resumed its sitting this even
ing. After Speaker Peel had thanked
the House for its Indulgence during his
| illness. Attorney General Holmes re-
opened the debate on the Government
side in favor of the Irish Grimes Act
Amendment bill He contended that
the measure was a fair and reasonable
| one. and that none of its provisions
would interfere with Constitutional or
infringe on public rights. The House
should remember. Holmes argued,
that society i'm Ireland is in "A state of
disorganization. that crime went unde-
tected and that people seemed To sym
pathize with criminals and thwarted at
tempts Ia obtain evidence. In cases
where the evidence was clear against the
prisoners juries refused To convict. so
that the system of trial by jury had alb
solutely broken down i'm Ireland.
Ii was absurd To say that
crime in ireland should go
unpunished rather than that such effec-
tual means as changing of venue should
be taken to secure due administration of
the law. Mr.. Holmes hoped it would
not be necessary, if the bill passed, 10
have frequent recourse to a change of
venue. [Derisive Parnellite cheers.
Referring To the question of summary
jurisdiction, the Attorney General said
that was not the first time such a pro-
vision had been made to deal with
offenses. Under a summary process
resident magistrates in Ireland would be
no more executive offices than justices of
the peace in England, while every
possible safeguard would be taken Ia
prevent magistrates from interfering un-
less the laws of the country were set at
defiance. As To the provision enabling
the Niceroy to suppress dangerous asso-
Citations. the bill left the exercise of the
Niceroys power under the veto Of Par
Lament. The Government adhered to
the proposal to make the bill perpetual.
The misfortune in the enactment of past
measures of the kind was that they were
not made perpetual. Parliament could,
of course, repeal the present law when
ever necessary, but so long as its power
TO sustain the law was required il would
remain in force. ICheers.
WOULD MAKE DISORDER.
Right Hon. Hugh c. Childers said
that although he supported the amend
ment to the bill, he admitted that some
of the bill provisions would not he OBJ
iectable if they were made part of the
general law for both Ireland and Eng
land, but these features of the proposed
law which the Government especially
intended to apply to Ireland were un-
warranted and would be- found To evoke
disorder instead of remedying existing
evils. Why propose coercion when there
was no increase of crime shown in Ire
land. Before the last election
at least ninety Conservative mem
bers declared against any fur
ther coercion. Lord Salisbury
himself stated that il was impracticable
and impossible to reimpose ON Ireland
any measure like the former Crimes Act.
The government would soon learn.
should the present bill become a law,
now ulsststrOuS was tflelr recourse 10 the
old and bad system of repression, worse
than ever now, when the representatives
of five-sixths of the Irish people opposed
the measure.
TOO MUCH POWER To MAGISTRATES.
Mr.. Childers protested strongly against
the proposed powers To resident magis-
trates who he knew, he said, would be
unfit by reason Of lack Of legal training
to properly exercise them, especially i'm
cases involving the application Of the ex-
treme provisions of the White Boy acts
and the legal construction of the word
conspiracy"
The proposal To try Irish prisoners in
England was amongst the worst fea-
lures of the bill. What would have
been said if ever it had been proposed to
send Englishmen to trial out of their
own country for crimes committed in it:
lParnellite cheersl. The speaker ridi-
culed the lessons of definition contained
in the bill and warned the Government
that for this reason alone, a number of
its clauses would prove imperative.